Simply put, Sexism + ableism. In this case I believe it's 2 strikes and you are out.
WI: Elizabeth Tudor is born blind
- Thread starter Emperor Lucas I
- Start date
The reason was that Mary knew her (legal) legitimacy came from the Third Succession Act, and the Third Succession Act was unambiguous in naming Elizabeth as the next-in-line. Even though (as a Catholic) Mary regarded herself as legitimate (and the only legitimate child of Henry VIII) she had to admit that under English law, she was legally illegitimate and her place to inherit after Edward VI was determined by that succession act and little else.
The whole Jane Grey business completely destroyed Mary's chances of naming an heir outside of what had already been outlined in the Third Succession Act. It would make her look like too much of a hypocrite.
Of course, the circumstances are going to be completely different here: Ed's not even going to exist as we know him (if at all), and it's unlikely that a document like the Third Succession Act would exist without the influence of Catherine Parr (who may or may not marry Henry VIII here).
John became King of Bohemia at age 14 .(1311).. He went blind 25 years later (1336). By that time, he had a long career as a warrior, administrator, and diplomat, and his son and successor, future Emperor Charles IV was 20.
His continuing to reign was very different from a blind-from-birth person succeeding to a throne.
I do not remember where but I once read that Mary had changed English law again in order to recognize her parents' marriage as valid again. It was always her point anyway.
But Mary needed to be Queen in order to recognize the marriage, though. And in order to be Queen, she needs to have a better right to it than Jane. Which (on top of Mary's greater popularity) was achieved via the Third Succession Act.
The point is that Mary never saw as valid the reason why she had been excluded in the first place: the annulment of her parents' marriage. In her mind, changing law to recognize this marriage again is only fixing things right. Once on the throne, she can easily claim she has right to it as Henry VIII's legitimate daughter and Elizabeth has no right to it due to being a bastard.
Her cousin, the other Mary, the queen of Scots, never cared about any succession act. She claimed the throne of England simply as the legitimate great-granddaughter of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. It was only a matter of bloodline and legitimacy.
I think Mary of England's true problem about making Margaret Douglas the heiress was precisely the fact that, following only bloodline and legitimacy, the logical heiress was not Margaret Douglas but... precisely Mary Queen of Scots. Of course, there was Edward III's "De natis ultra mare" that could be used against Mary Queen of Scots but why would Edward III's acts have more value than Henry VIII's?
I am talking about not taking into account that kind of layout and considering only bloodline and legitimacy.
Let's notice that's precisely what finally occured in OTL, with James VI becoming king of England.
Because Mary QoS was James V's daughter.
James V and Margaret Douglas were both Margaret Tudor's children. But James V was older and was male. And Mary QoS was his heiress.